Case law

Michael C. v. Radnor Township School District

202 F.3d 642 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2000

The court also granted PDE's separate motion for dismissal of the S 1983 claim as to it based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. This timely appeal followed. 1 We will affirm. I. 3 The facts of this case are undisputed. … (A.127a-28a). 11 We do not address whether the mediation procedures codified at section 1415(e) by the 1997 IDEA amendments qualify as "proceedings conducted pursuant to" section 1415 under the pendency requirement. 12 See

United States v. William T. Smith, Jr. Appeal of United States of America

793 F.2d 85 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 13, 1986

Clearly, an issue that is “patently without merit” cannot qualify as significant. An issue which has been unanimously decided by the other circuits may or may not be significant. … Precedent clearly establishes that twelve jurors are not required for a conviction. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970).

Simmons v. Beard

581 F.3d 158 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 11, 2009

At trial, the prosecution established a timeline of Simmons’s activities on the day of the murder. … Assuming arguendo that we review this claim under § 2254(d), see Part III.B, supra, we must defer to that conclusion unless it was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,

Bobb v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 2006

conclude that both must be fulfilled in order for the offense to qualify as an aggravated felony.”). … I therefore cannot accept that it “makes no sense” for Congress to have established a new test for all forgery-related crimes.

16 Fair empl.prac.cas. 978, 15 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8090 James Bethel v. Jendoco Construction Corporation, Navarro Corporation, Noralco Corporation, Dick Corporation, Graziano Construction Co., Inc., Martin & Nettrour Contracting Company, Carpenters' District Council of Western Pennsylvania, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Jointly and Severally

570 F.2d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 1, 1978

Finally, in alleging race-based discrimination, the complaint clearly charges that Bethel was a victim of "invidious, purposeful and intentional discrimination between classes or individuals." Robinson v. … Murdoch, that an affirmative defense may be raised on a 12(b) (6) motion if the predicate establishing the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint 11 Because of our disposition of Bethel's § 1981 claim we find

K & K Construction Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

592 F.2d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 1979

out union pay scales and stating that members were neighbors and taxpayers trying to protect area wage standards and conditions that took many years to achieve. 1 10 The ALJ found that the picketing and handbilling were clearly … The dissenting member argued that the Board was departing from established precedent prohibiting secondary picketing where the struck product could not be separated from that of the secondary party. 12 Resolution of the issue

United States v. Herbert Vederman

914 F.3d 112 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 16, 2019

The third charged act—hiring Vederman’s girlfriend—is clearly an official act. … This was established.

Moran v. Clarke

443 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 11, 2006

Rather, the reasons abundantly established that Mr. … Precedent rightly demands that invidious racial reasons should never be used to exclude an otherwise qualified juror.

In Re Ernest Dykes Charlene Dykes, Debtors. General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Ernest Dykes and Charlene Dykes, Charles J. Dehart, Iii, Trustee

10 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 30, 1993

We are satisfied that an appellant must qualify as a "person aggrieved" to be eligible for appellate review of a bankruptcy court order. … Because the relevant facts and necessary evidence are clearly before us and not in dispute, we consider it proper to address the issue ourselves.

Robinson v. Matthews International Corp.

368 F. App'x 301 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 2010

In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination for failure to promote, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) he is age forty or older; (2) he applied for and is qualified for the job; (3) despite his qualifications … Matthews has clearly laid out that an “adequate” review equates with “below standard” performance.

Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce

716 F.2d 177 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 1983

Absent a local rule establishing a time limit, the timeliness of an application for attorney’s fees is a matter for the district court’s discretion. White v. … The requisite consideration is beyond that necessary to determine if plaintiff was sufficiently successful to qualify as a prevailing party and requires an evaluation of the interrelationships between plaintiff’s successful

New Jersey Chamber of Commerce v. Hughey

868 F.2d 621 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

However, we do not think the finding of the district court clearly erroneous. We therefore affirm. I. THE ALLEGEDLY CONFLICTING STATUTES A. … We do not think that the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous.

United States v. Francis Brooks

747 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2014

It was certainly not intended to immunize police officers from prosecution for such clearly illegal actions as restraining someone’s liberty until a ransom is paid. … Indeed, that proposition is so firmly established as to require no citation.

Knoll v. Springfield Township School District

699 F.2d 137 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 23, 1983

That Code provision establishes a six-year limitations period for: 9 Any civil action or proceeding which is neither subject to another limitation specified in this subchapter nor excluded from the application by a period … Sec. 1988 , Congress "quite clearly instructs [federal courts] to refer to state statutes" when federal law provides no rule of decision for actions brought under Sec. 1983. Robertson v.

Shearer, Louise, Ind. And as Administratrix of the Estate of Shearer, Vernon, Deceased v. United States of America C/o Peter F. Vaira, U.S. Attorney

723 F.2d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 7, 1984

It is to this action the statute does not waive immunity. … In other words, it is clearly unsound to afford immunity to a negligent defendant because the intervening force, the very anticipation of which made his conduct negligent, has brought about the expected harm.

Compensation Department of District Five v. Marshall

667 F.2d 336 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 9, 1981

See 33 U.S.C. § 921 (b)(1) (BRB’s members are to be “appointed by the Secretary from among individuals who are especially qualified to serve”). … Kyne to be clearly distinguishable from the ease sub judice, however, and we reject District Five’s contention that the remedies available from the BRB with respect to § 413(b) are inadequate. In Leedom v.

Britting v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs

409 F. App'x 566 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 1, 2011

Furthermore, in expanding the definition of disability, the ADAAA clearly increased the VA‟s liability for past conduct. … As a result, we conclude that the ADAAA cannot be applied retroactively.3 Britting argues that the new statute is nevertheless applicable because it effects a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Feather v. United Mine Workers of America

903 F.2d 961 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 21, 1990

We do not believe that negotiations to obtain legal objectives can immunize the resulting illegal objective. … Proposal of the illegal hot cargo clause after this date, however, did not immunize the strike from the causal effects of the clause.

Durham v. Department of Corrections

173 F. App'x 154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 24, 2006

Because the District Court’s disposition of these motions clearly was correct, we will summarily affirm. … State prison officials are immune from suit for those actions within the scope of their duties, except in instances in which the immunity has been specifically waived. See 1 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 2310.

United States v. Carl Howard Carter, Lester Murphy Hayes, Alfredo S. Desphy. Carl Howard Carter

401 F.2d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 24, 1969

We feel that this case falls clearly within the rule announced in United States v. Sheridan, 329 U.S. 379 , 67 S.Ct. 332 , 91 L.Ed. 359 .” … This rule is qualified by a number of exceptions stated in terms of the capacity of the evidence to prove some specific fact or issue such as intent, plan, scheme or design. E. g., United States v.